Quentin Tarantino shuts down interviewer over questioning about violence

Quentin Tarantino's latest film "Django Unchained," nominated Thursday for three Oscars, bears the director's trademark: it is rife with violence. In an interview to promote the film, Krishnan Guru-Murthy of Britain's Channel 4 News attempts to ask Tarantino about what link there might be between violence in films and the proliferation of real-life violence -- and Tarantino wasn't having it.

"Why are you so sure that there's no link between enjoying movie violence and enjoying real violence?" Guru-Murthy asked Tarantino.

88. I'm not sure what the correlation is

But correlation does not imply causation. I know of no studies that reconcile the fact that movies have gotten unquestionably much more violent over the same time period that real violence has declined significantly. It's pretty hard to ignore that correlation.

2. He could have answered the question honestly instead of sounding defensive about it.

I was planning on seeing Django Unchained with my daughters. But I'm glad we didn't get the chance to see it when it came out because I've heard the level of violence is very disturbing. My daughters are 15 and they can handle some rough stuff but it sounds like the violence overwhelms the story, or at least competes unnecessarily with it.

I think directors who are losing their moxie start to throw in more heaps of violence thinking it makes them relevant.

It sounds like a great story on its own but I think we'll pass on it for now.

18. I wouldn't allow my sons to watch Pulp Fiction until they were older

This is pretty funny - this little conversation. We're so often on different sides of the cannabis issue and often your take revolves around the issue of teenagers.

I draw a line between the world of teenagers and the world of adults.

I saw Pulp Fiction in the theater when it was first released. The movie had such an impact upon me, I didn't even want to watch any other media for days because nothing else could come close to the characters and scenes in that movie.

I'm also part of the "hide your eyes" crew for certain parts of films, like the "Stuck in the Middle With You" dance scene in Rez Dogs.

54. I've seen it and I suggest you see it alone. nt

86. I think you're making a mistake not seeing it--the violence in this movie is actually important--

not the spaghetti western shoot-up violence that tips it's hat to those gory old flicks, but the violence that the movie depicts being done against slaves. This is the first time since Roots no one is softening the blow or pretending that it "wasn't all that bad" for the slaves. That violence is very necessary in order to turn people's stomachs about slavery and make sure that those in the south who'd like to pretend the Civil War was all about "State's Rights" don't have a leg to stand on any longer.

Over the last 20 years, white bigots on the right have tried their best to bring back the romance of the confederacy. They've tried to pretend slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War, they've even taken mention of slavery out of the history books in Texas. THIS IS ALARMING. And nothing has countered this propaganda till now. And the joy I get from this movie is that there isn't a thing those confederate flag-wavers can do about it. Kids who read those faux text books will, I hope, see this movie, read how the depictions of what happens to the slaves was all based on historical record, and realize that they've been lied to. And be ashamed of that confederate flag rather than willing to wave it.

You don't have to like Tarantino's enjoyment of movie violence, or approve of how he answered this question--though he sounds to me more like someone who has had it with Fox type interviewers trying to bait him into being the goat for gun violence rather than being serious journalists.

We on the left, however, really need to support this movie for doing what we haven't been doing. Countering these shameful and horrible attempt to whitewash our history so that most Americans don't have to acknowledge one of American's great sins. Tarantino had the money and clout to do this, no studio looking over his shoulder ordering him to tone it down. And so I don't care if he acts like an ass to an ass an of interviewer, I'm saluting him and supporting his movie.

82. Agreed. The interviewer is entitled to ask, but he's not obliged to answer. n/t

5. I really can't stand his work.

I never have gotten the appeal of "Pulp Fiction" and it is right up there with "Fargo" on my least favorite films of all times list. I heard Terry Gross interviewing him on NPR and Terry is always a gracious and well-informed interviewer. He was downright rude to her over the same type of question. He seems to think that violence is somehow sexy. I think the man is someone with personality problems who has happened to find a medium in which to play out his darker take on the world.

33. +100

not into the whole violence for violence's sake genre...and honestly, pulp fiction was disturbing on several levels. The only 'funny' was travolta and jackson...but the rest was just wrong on so many levels.

I think he's pretty whacked in the head, and yet he thinks he is so cool for being that way

48. I concur with your opionions

on both "Pulp Fiction" and "Fargo." I tried watching "Pulp Fiction" twice and got maybe halfway through it both times and finally gave up trying to understand, well, ANYTHING about the damned thing. I tried watching "Fargo" three times and fell asleep all three times. I don't know, maybe my tastes aren't sophisticated enough or something.

53. The only interesting thing I find about Quentin Tarantino is his name. nt

58. He made (in the Gross interview) a point..

... that I think has some validity. He said, paraphrasing as best I can, that the violence in his movies is over the top to the point of not being realistic, and that he didn't see how anyone could take it seriously.

I kind of get what he is saying. I am not a fan of movie violence, and frankly the gorier/explicit stuff makes me practically ill. Pulp fiction was hard to watch in spots but IMHO you cannot deny the power of the film.

I have not seen Django yet and will probably get around to it, I'm in no hurry.

92. BINGO

Especially with Django. It would seem Tarantino is a fan of Sam Raimi films ("The Evil Dead 1/2", "Army of Darkness") although Raimi gets even more ridiculously awesome with the violence (think buckets of red, green and black blood).

Tarantino's actually one of my favorite film directors and "Pulp Fiction" is probably in my top 5 films of all time. That being said, that movie scared the crap out of me when I first saw it...although the fact that I was 6 years old probably had something to do with it. Back in the day mom let me watch whatever movie she watched, thinking I was too young to absorb any of it (WRONG). That OD-adrenaline-shot-to-the-heart scene really stays with ya, man

P.S. Django was good, not "Pulp Fiction" or "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" good but still hella fun. The thing I love about Tarantino is he's just like..."OK, let's go for historical accuracy...ya know what, fuck it, I'm just gonna do whatever the hell I want!", e.g. Sam Jackson's character swearing like a modern-day guy. What I love about his filmmaking is you can tell he's a movie-lover and is having a hella good time making a film. Also, there's just something about the way that Christoph Waltz delivers Tarantino's dialogue that is simply...delicious.

84. I listened to that interview, and we are of the same opinion

I listened to that interview, and we are of the same opinion. Regardless, violence in films is simply another sacred cow to too many people-- bring it up, and many will immediately minimize or trivialize it, but rarely discuss it.

85. So who wants to make the argument?

Jane fucking Austen defended female novel readers because society in her time were sure that novel reading was going to lead to the downfall of female virtue.

Since when are artists not allowed to depict the REAL violence that occurred to REAL PEOPLE who were so desensitized by their exposure to putrid stories in the bible... that were twisted to endorse what they already wanted to do?

I mean, honestly, if you look at it, the Civil War was the most violent conflict in this nation's history. How violent was the media of the time? ooh, ooh, I know, I know! (holding up my hand.) It was nothing compared to the realistic depictions we see today, beyond battle scene photos of dead soldiers.

6. Good for him.

The line of questioning is ludicrous. Crazy people do crazy things. The problem is lack of mental health care and readily available military style weapons. It's not Tarentino's movies, it's not Heavy Metal and it's not D&D or video games.

13. I'm very much looking forwards to seeing Django Unchained

23. Why?

Don't believe the hype. Its pretty mediocre. Wait for video

I believe QT had an amazing opportunity to make a great black western, and blew it with incoherent/conflicting styles, silliness, cliches, 10 foot long blood squirts, dramatic posing, etc. When the dust settles, it may not even be one of his top.

29. I agree, I thought it a mess of a film.

45. it was an homage to spaghetti westerns..

which were rife with cliches, 10 foot long blood squirts, dramatic posing, etc. I thought it was okay. overly long, but I certainly enjoyed Christopher Waltz's work and look forward to seeing him in more films.

57. "Didn't even sound to me as though he was TRYING to make a black Western"

Hm. Maybe Im overthinking it. There are so many motifs about equality and race relations I thought maybe it was trying to do or be something. Maybe it was just a theme for a gory and entertaining movie. Maybe I expect too much.

43. I think it is a very good movie

He has copied the spaghetti western quite well with this movie. The music is great in it. Tarantino's films don't always do it for me, but he is a very good film maker. Samuel L. Jackson gives a very disturbing and I think brave performance. He was snubbed for an Oscar considering Alan Arkin was nominated for the same role he has been playing all of his life.

15. Good for him. The question itself is weaponized, it is a passive aggressive way of accusing him

of guilt for this violence to avoid the culpability of those who commit violence and those who profit hugely from real violence.
In addition, Guru-Murthy has it all backwards. It is the job of the artist to reflect that which exists in our culture, not to edit out the rough parts to make the world look better. If Guru-Mrthy wants to see films without violence she needs to create a world without violence, a job at which the reporter is failing, as is the BBC and the government of the UK.

20. LOL

Movies that are set in the past certainly do talk about the present. Tarantino talked about the war on drugs and the American prison and legal system and the disparity between sentencing for whites and blacks. He said that's slavery by another name.

Which is also the title of a great book about the re-imposition of slavery by Jim Crow laws after the south lost the war - they didn't care, they just found new way to create a permanent underclass by false charges of crimes and false claims that put (mostly) black men into indentured servitude... all the while the whites were thinking they were so much better than those "criminals."

25. Yeah, I know it does.

46. Although that's far from what Tarantino did say in the interview

He described the violence as fantasy, not "that which exists in our culture", such as one guy fighting a hundred; and Tarantino sees it as cathartic. Guru-Murthy is a man, by the way. He didn't say he didn't want to see films without violence; he asked why Tarantino was sure there's no connection between enjoying the violence in a movie and enjoying it in real life. As others have pointed out, Tarantino could have pointed to studies saying there's no connection found.

Why do you single out the BBC and the UK government as failing to create a world without violence?

21. I LOVE Quentin Taratino...Resevoir Dogs..one of my favorite

I had never heard of it...but found it back in the 'old days' back when you picked out your movie sleeve took it to the counter and they put the vcr video into the sleeve...I was surprised...but I knew it was a movie...and not real life...

What I found SHOCKING was COPS the TV show...it showed a man being gunned down right on teevee.....in REAL LIFE! That show made me feel sick to my stomach..and I knew if I watched to many more episodes I would be inured to murder...so I quit watching it.

101. Everything in Kill Bill was overdone

27. Possibly THE most over-rated director of all time..

His movies feature the weakest dialogue imaginable coupled with an orgy of gore, sadism and violence that borders on sensory overload...whatever personal demons that man has I wish he would work them out with a therapist instead of on the silver screen..

32. Afraid I agree

I find his films unwatchable. The occasional good scene (or even a few as in Pulp Fiction). But they all fall apart along the way. Can't help but conclude that plot and character development are an afterthought for him.

49. I taught film studies, but not Tarantino. My students, still, had a familiarity with

his content and style. This interviewer was insulting to not ask more intelligent questions about his body of work and how this film fits it.

Tarantino's whole "it could have happened" approach to reinterpreting an historical character and time is a damned fine artistic path that he's carving out for himself. I can say with the confidence of one who has taught African American Literature and film studies for over 25 of my 34 teaching years, that anyone who calls this minstrelsy -- not that anyone HERE has -- doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

Tarantino said of the film that it is meant to be a jagged pill for us to swallow with no water. Back when "Pulp Fiction" (l994) did the master/slave reversal by having Ving Rhames' character, who is the master to Travolta, the house slave, and Willis, the field slave -- Tarantino was brillant, in my view. Most people didn't catch that historical reversal, which he's now developing in full features. But the ongoing male violence/dominance memes of his films raise all kinds of questions about heroism, adaptation and overcoming the trappings of decadence.

This and "Inglorious Basterds' " stylized filmwork aggrandizes what has been buried in history. I call his latest a fair compensation to amplify the agency of tens of thousands, if not millions, of slaves in that era, who couldn't retell their rebellious heroisms for themselves. It's not paternalism. It's using art to uncover buried 'agency' and greatness of a people.

70. +1000

I am a long-time Tarantino fan; however, regardless of individual tastes in film, I thought this particular interviewer was incredibly insulting. I saw an excellent interview with Tarantino recently regarding "Django". The interviewer asked intelligent, non-loaded questions about the film and its implications with regard to the current state of race relations in America; thereby, he received direct, intelligent answers.

I was going to post the link, but it's been a long while since I've been a poster on DU, and I haven't had a chance to review the rules regarding links, etc.

80. Fantastic post. Spot on. n/t

91. Thanks for the rant!

I saw the movie on New Year's Day. I am an African-American female and probably not Tarantino's target audience. But, I must confess to loving his movies. I love the style of his movies and have seen Pulp Fiction many times.

I thought the violence in D'jango was appropriate to illustrate the brutality of slavery. It showed how ingrained in the minds of whites of the time the image of people of color as not human. How else could one person treat another human being that way. I saw the movie with a theater full of white folks and when it ended, people filed out in silence. Hopefully there were some discussions about the issues the movie raised on the way home.

Samuel L. Jackson was shafted by the Oscars for not getting a nod for his performance. I have always loved his characters in his films. He has made me laugh and shake my head. But this movie made me totally loathe his character. I lost Samuel L. Jackson into the person of the "house slave". Unfortunately, we still have quite a few real-life examples of "house slaves" today.

I have encouraged people to see this film. This doesn't equate D'jango with a history book but depictions of the horrific violent institution of slavery is never going to be easy to see or atone for.

Yes! Jackson IS lost in Stephen. His character is exactly the house slave that needs to disturb whites. Jackson shows the well adapted Stephen fueled by anger. His hatred of Django's public equal treatment is surpassed only by the amazing agency he shows in Calvin's library, swirling his brandy while he tells Calvin what time it is.

Right on about Django and the violence.

Two more points: Anyone who sees the 'blowup' of the directer-in-character knows that Tarantino understands his limited artistic role in addressing slavery.

Foxx, Jackson and DiCaprio would never submit to flawed character interpretations of blacks or whites of Southern slave culture. They don't need the money.

sounds like he has conflicting issues on whether violence in reels has any connection to real life violence.

I don't know since I'm not succeptible to it..but, I have no idea about those who commit murder and massacres. But it's a valid question with all the rampant gun violence.. especiallly the freaking Newtown monster.

Note to reporters.. don't ask QT any questions about violence in his movies relating to the actual violence in our country.

87. Read this interview with Kerry Washington before you pass any knee-jerk judgement...

A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of George Washington University, Washington studied anthropology, sociology and psychology. Though she believed taking on the role of a slave would be both an emotional and psychological challenge, she deemed it worthy both as a piece of art and as an empowerment tale for African Americans. In the film, she plays the wife of Django (Jamie Foxx), a slave who unexpectedly wins his freedom and returns to Mississippi on a mission of rescue and revenge.

"We've had a tradition of romanticizing slavery in film, and I thought this was a phenomenal opportunity to go into a creative exploration of this violent, awful, evil, sinful time period with a director who is not intimidated by violence and gore and exploring the evil side of the human spirit," said Washington, 35.

90. Actually, what's upsetting most of the right-wing media is that this movie is about a black man...

...who uses guns to defend himself and other back people against whites--and is completely justified in doing so. And as we know from Travon Martin, blacks aren't suppose to do that. Yet this movie says they should.

I suspect that is why this interviewer tried to make Tarantino ashamed of the violence in it.

95. I don't like a lot of Tarantino's movies but he's a talented guy and smart as a whip

and he clearly doesn't suffer fools gladly. Guns and the people behind them cause violence. The rest is just distraction. If a kid is too stupid to understand the difference between a movie and real life, he or she should be kept far away from guns.

105. terry gross basically asked the same, but better.

i agree some of his movies the violence is over the top, but ay least he tells a better story. or it is this weird movie history thing he mashes in his head. and when he said he doesn't want any animals to be hurt, even mentally, OK, have your gun play.

110. He is the rightwing dream using every single NRA soundbyte and making millions.

now, if you say he is satire, I say bullshit.

one, the rightwing doesn't know satire if it bit them in the face.
all they see is the NRA talking points (like in Inglorious Basterds, especially there, that if
the Jews had guns, blah blah blah(and I am Jewish)Whitewashing history and the Holocaust just to make himself millions.

Tarentino steals from so many sources, but the important thing is

He is NO David Lynch.

so he inflicts NO redemption at the end, like Lynch does in all his movies,
and just goes for the guns, the gore, and the last man standing routine

about the only thing good he ever did was introduce America to the German Superstar Christoph Waltz

and Tarentino above, comparing HIMSELF to Slaves? What bullcrap.

Glad he did not get an Oscar nomination for directing.

Now why is it David Lynch can't get funded for new movies?
Oh, because he doesn't resort to the commercialism crap Tarentino does.

I back Spike Lee on this movie.

Tarentino is more a fake, than all the plastic surgery Hollywood stars get put together.

BTW, the day Tarentino can make a Straight Story like David Lynch did, nah, will never happen
Tarentino would have that lawnmower run people over and show blood, blood, blood